September 16, 2008

1. Sarah Palin said "The teleprompter got messed up, I couldn’t follow it, and I just decided I’d just talk to the people in front of me" but maybe the teleprompter wasn't broken. What's with dissing teleprompters that may in fact be functioning properly? Hey, isn't this the oldest speakers trick in the book? I came here tonight with a prepared speech -- wave the papers around -- but then I saw you and decided to speak straight from my heart -- make a show of setting the papers to the side. It's a little cornball, but... whatever. Doesn't work too well if you've distributed the text in advance, and the straight-from-the-heart talk is nearly the same, which is what happened to Palin. Good to know the press is keeping her honest and protecting the reputation of the unfairly maligned teleprompter.

2. Sarah Palin bought a tanning bed for the governor's mansion. She paid for it with her own money, but still, she bought a tanning bed for the governor's mansion. Don't you think that says something about her? People, she tans! Is she tanorexic? In what other exercises of personal vanity does she indulge? Let's view her rifle-wielding and posing with dead moose in the light of the tanning bed. It's all a big narcissistic show. Come on, America. Wise up to this lady. She wants to be President so she can swan around on the national stage like a big beauty queen.

Hilarious that for three weeks Palin's critics have hurled everything imaginable at her (most of it actually imaginary, too), and yet even now, as they desperately scrape the bottom of the barrel (whence the tanning bed story surely is), the only person to land a direct hit is David Frum!

I don't remember anybody ever claiming that the teleprompter "broke." ABC just flat made that up. What was said about the teleprompter was that the teleprompter operator got out of sync with Palin's delivery of the speech because the operator didn't sufficiently pause for applause, not that it broke.

It would be interesting to see if a tanning bed helped combat the depression that results from such long nights throughout the winter in Alaska.

When we visited Barrow a number of years ago, we were shown the alcohol clinic there. It was empty at the time, but we were told that by mid winter, its 200 or so beds would be full. This in a town where buying (but not drinking) alcohol was illegal. Of course, Barrow is a bit north of Juneau, and is indeed north of any other town in the U.S., but it may indicate a trend.

Despite being the palest man in Brooklyn, I have to depend Sarah Palin on the tanning bed thing. Alaska gets very little sunlight during the winter- a few hours per day at best. My girlfriend's family in Wasilla go to a tanning salon several times a week during the winter for light therapy. They were prescribed this therapy by their doctor.

Believe me, they don't look tan, they are not vain people and I doubt they would go near a tanning booth unless a doctor told them to. Trying to judge Alaskans by fairly your standards takes a little bit more thought than this.

Will Obama get to take his teleprompter with him to the debates? I'm sure the DNC media will funnel the questions to holy and precious Obama ahead of time so that he can carefully craft his answers and have them ready to go.

Fannie and Freddie were run almost exclusively by democrats and yet Obama blames Bush and free markets. Will the pro-democrat media investigate?

AprilApple said... "oh yeah - the pro-democrat media can twist it and make her look bad."

I suspect that they think ordinary Americans will look at it and say "wow! She must be a rich out of touch elitist!" I suspect that ordinary Americans will look at it and think "hey, neat a tanning bed - I've got to get me one of those!" Americans don't resent people who've become succesful. It isn't Obama's money that robs him of the ability to resonate with ordinary Americans, it's his attitude: they resent people who resent them. Palin may have a tanning bed and a little more money, but she is fundamentally one of them, and America at large gets that even if the NYT doesn't. And that's why, I submit, Obama's going to lose and lose heavily.

I don't know what to make of the teleprompter mini-controversy. My understanding of the story is not that the teleprompter wasn't working. Instead, the person operating it was, at times, scrolling the text faster than Palin was delivering her remarks. That's not at all unusual. Speaker preferences vary. Some want to see the word, in context, on the screen as they are speaking it. Others want to word to disappear from the screen as they are spoken -- so they can see the words that are coming up. For this reason, speakers and teleprompters typically practice together so their timing is right.

Throw in the fact that Palin did not have the time for much practice (due to the brief time between when her nomination was announced and when her speech was given) and the vagaries of the crowd's interrupting the speech for applause and laughter, and it would be surprising if the teleprompter's timing were not off. Given all that, I believe Palin when she says she was not relying entirely on the teleprompter. (That's not the same thing as ignoring the teleprompter.) The fact the remarks, as delivered, track closely with but were not the same as the text of the prepared speech is consistent with Palin's story. At times she departed from her prepared remarks -- supposedly because the teleprompter had skipped ahead. At times she delivered her speech word-for-word, -- supposedly because she was reading the speech from the teleprompter.

Recall that the only reason this came up is because the Obama campaign's initial response to Palin's speech was: She did a good job of reading words written by Bush's speechwriter. The McCain camp's retort: Ha! She didn't just read the speech, the teleprompter wasn't working (perfectly).

Tanning beds are not good sources of Vitamin D. I doubt that is needed in her diet, anyway, if she's eating fish, which I suspect is true.

I would think an active person -- like a Governor -- would have a lightbox, not a tanning bed, for SAD, if that's why she has the bed. How much more work can you get done in a tanning bed vs. sitting in front of a lightbox?

The tanning bed wasn't for Sarah, it was for her staff. Everyone knows Sarah positively emanates light. She glows with a fierce determination and force of will that illuminates a room like a million candle power spotlight.

As recorded by a reporter allowed to observe the 35-minute fundraiser appearance, this was the first time Gov. Palin herself relayed the story of how a fouled-up teleprompter forced her to ad-lib big swaths of her acclaimed acceptance speech at the Republican Convention Sept. 3.

But that story has been largely debunked.

Reporters who saw the equipment that night say -and the party has not denied -- that any teleprompter issue was minor at most.

In the days after the event it was touted -- on a hush-hush, off the record basis -- by top Republicans as a way to show how swift-thinking is their newest star, despite her avoidance of any and all unscripted moments on the trail.

Sarah Palin bought a tanning bed for the governor's mansion. She paid for it with her own money, but still, she bought a tanning bed for the governor's mansion. Don't you think that says something about her?

Luckyoldson, do you know what an earmark is? You are aware that earmarks are initiated at the Federal legislative level (House or Senate) and not by state governors?

Earmarks direct how federal money is spent at a state level. Governors cannot request earmarks. A state governor can apply for Federal funds through existing legislation, which every state receives. Again, earmarks are initiated at the Federal level, usually to award some particular constituency or group.

While you have continually demonstrated your ignorace on this matter, do us all a favor and do some research on the earmark issue. Better to be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

(Thought train: If I shut the door, the dog will scratch on it, so I leave it open a crack. Then he doesn't care.)

Speaking of the Governor's aesthetic needs, Sunday's NYT Style section had an article on the Governor's hometown beauty salon. Located in a "ballerina-pink" prefab house, a cut and color would cost you $115.

The nugget of actual news: the stylist-owner of "Beehive" suspected Sarah was pregnant with Trig because her hair was behaving differently.

bissage, Wasteful earmarks certainly bother me, but it's the fact that Palin continues to lie about even accepting them or supporting the bridge to nowhere, when it's been well documented that that is not the case in either instance.

I know most here think McCain/Palin are going to be swept into the White House, but I personally think their brand of politics and again, Palin's continued lies and of course, being sheltered from any real discourse with the press, will eventually turn Americans off.

How does one go from "the TelePrompter got messed up" to "the TelePrompter was broken"?

That's disingenuous. If the thing is running too slowly or pauses or races ahead it's not actually broken, just bollox.

Haven't you ever tried to read aloud? Of course you have. Your eyes are a few lines ahead of your mouth. You examine what's coming and leave it for your brain to work out. This gives you time to judge where to place emphasis, where to take care, where to inflect.

Look at what this woman has done. She fired the political appointees of the previous administration when she took office, she talked with her husband regarding budget matters, she took per-diems that she was allowed to take, and she bought a tanning bed for the governor's mansion with her own money FFS!

That settles it. Sarah Palin may be the most ethical politician in the history of the planet.

Someone earlier said that a Governor cannot "request" earmarks, which is a crock:

By Hal Bernton and David HeathSeattle Times staff reporters

ANCHORAGE — Just this year, she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state.

*Anybody think "sending a proposal" to the state's Senator, might fall into the category of a "request??"

Also:

Palin's requests to Congress came at a time of huge federal deficits, while Alaska state revenue was soaring due to rising oil prices and a major tax increase on oil production that Palin signed into law in late 2007.

As a result, Alaska this year was in such a money-flushed condition — with no state income tax or sales tax and total state revenues of $10 billion, double the previous year's — that Palin gained legislative approval for $1,200 cash payments to every Alaskan.

ALSO:

She she hired a Washington, D.C., lobbyist, Steven Silver, a former aide to Stevens, then the ultimate rainmaker as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

"She was hungry for earmarks just like everybody else," said Larry Persily, who worked at the Alaska state office in Washington, D.C., until earlier this year. "Everyone was feeding at the trough."

ALSO:

"Palin's approach to earmarks has been much closer to the views of Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, than of McCain, who wants to end the entire earmark system."

MadisonMan said..."Simon, let me remind you that your history of predictions is poor. You did not foresee the Democrat take-over in '06, if I'm recalling things correctly.

Uh... What? My recollection is that I not only foresaw it, I celebrated the loss of the House. The only thing that I lamented about the 2006 house election was that we didn't lose another fifty seats. I wanted the House Republican Caucus taken to the woodshed and thrashed within an inch of its life for what it had done to the party's reputation since 2002. The only thing that upset me was the loss of the Senate - and then not because they're any better than the House but because they are necessary to getting judges confirmed and because unlike the House, in the Senate a sizable minority can still have a powerful effect on the business of the chamber. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I think you're misremembering.

I concede that I wrote off McCain last year, and that turned out to be profoundly mistaken. What other predictions have I made that came out wrong?

garage mahal said..."Just for fun, I'll go out on a limb and say that as of today, I think McCain will win 329 to 209, Haha. I'd like to see that state breakdown. Ain't happenin."

Start from 2004 as a baseline. Obama wins Colorado and Iowa. McCain picks up Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan and Washington. Now, I'll concede that this is a rosy picture. Recent polling might be wrong: Obama might keep Washington and win New Mexico. Now we're down to a 313-225 margin. Perhaps recent polling is too optimistic for McCain in Minnesota, Michigan or Pennsylvania - but he only has to get one of those states, based on the map I've posited above, to win.

"bissage, Wasteful earmarks certainly bother me, but it's the fact that Palin continues to lie about even accepting them or supporting the bridge to nowhere, when it's been well documented that that is not the case in either instance."

You really have no idea what an earmark is do you.

Here's a clue: If I'm a senator and I give you an earmark or your home town an earmark the governor of your state has no say in the matter.

Well. I should heed Oscar Wilde:

"Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone."

I've addressed the Obama story you continue to throw out, admitting that I misspoke, and believe me, I realize you're surrounded by right wing sycophants that will cheer you on, but this is the last time I'll respond to the same garbage.

Some people make mistakes and never admit to them; I've admitted my mistake and I'll leave it at that.

michael, you need to read about the definition of earmarks and appropriations.

Google it.

On the teleprompter kerkfuffle, is it really a lie? Is it a lie by omision or is it a lie at all? Is it important?

Same about the tanning bed. While I wouldn't go out of my way to buy one (and I am almost translucent)I respect her right to waste HER OWN MONEY as she wishes. I prefer tio use the condo's. And as someone who suffers from S.A.D., I have also been recommended to use one of those contraptions. I prefer a CFL.

=====================Seriously, UV light treatment by tanning beds, school "sunrooms" is very well established in arboreal, arctic regions that go 4-5 months without sunlight.It was based on Russian and Scandanavian medical research that showed regular UV therapy helped bone growth in children, was effective in reducing depression and "cabin fever" effects of prolonged lack of sunshine.

I have absolutely no idea why you keep repeating the charge, considering my comments relate to Sarah Palin lying about accepting the, requesting them and supporting the bridge to nowhere.

As for your inane statement that if a Senator provides funding for a specific project (an earmark), it cannot be denied.

You're inferring that an earmark, must be accepted and spent...on that specific project..which again, is a crock.

--Palin: "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge,' I said, 'we'd build it ourselves."

AND: But...while running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess.

But Palin did accept the money designated for the bridge to nowhere....but then chose other projects on which to spend it...as in: NOT SENDING IT BACK.

And...as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents.

Michael said..."Palin [said]: 'I told Congress, Thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves.' ... Palin did accept the money designated for the bridge to nowhere....but then chose other projects on which to spend it as in: NOT SENDING IT BACK." (Emphasis added.)

Sooner or later you'll get around to pointing out how that's contradictory. Palin didn't claim to have said "thanks for the money, but we don't want it." She claims to have said "no thanks" on the bridge - and as you concede, she didn't use the money for the bridge. So where's the inconsistency? Where's the lie? You say that you understand the difference between an earmark and an appropriation, but the evidence for that is pretty thin.

You're inferring that an earmark, must be accepted and spent...on that specific project..which again, is a crock.

Incorrect, yet again. I refer you to the following for your edification.

EarmarkA requirement that revenue be spent on a specific project or purpose, therefore intercepting the money before it is pooled with other revenue and appropriated as part of the General Fund. At the federal level, earmarking is often equated with pork spending.

Good to know the press is keeping her honest and protecting the reputation of the unfairly maligned teleprompter.

Actually, what they're trying to do is not give her credit for memorising her speech.

Whenever possible, I go to local news channels and watch their live feed of the McCain/Palin rallies. If she ever comes down to Miami (next month I heard), _I_ could give her speech for her.

Sure, she ad-libs, and perfectly such as the Yaeger reference, but it's a stump speech.

If the teleprompter is messed up, delayed, or she just wants to stop looking at it (like in Dayton, where she had teleprompters, but used her notes -- you saw McCain looking down at them all the time), she does just that.

She speaks as her memory and the moment takes her.

As Simon says (heh), this is the umpteenth time the press have written an article about nothing at all.

Speaking of the Governor's aesthetic needs, Sunday's NYT Style section had an article on the Governor's hometown beauty salon. Located in a "ballerina-pink" prefab house, a cut and color would cost you $115.

Whilst that may seem a lot to men who I heard regularly pay under $20 for a cut (my boyfriend pays a mere CAD 11), that is a surprisingly small amount of money for that style and the perfect highlights she has.

I pay $80 for my hair (it's neck-length), and well over $250 for colour and highlights (it's strawberry blonde, which I make lighter).

Man I wish Sarah Palin would just offer up the evidence when and where she "told Congress no thanks" so we can move along. Anyone have a link? Not one Republican in Congress remembers remembers that? Seems like a real missed opportunity to make a bunch of people look like fools on something so easy to verify.

I didn't think we could descend any further into electoral farce... I was wrong. At least this particular episode is mildly amusing, assuming that like me, you are a humorless liberal scold intent on ending all fun and mandating tan-lines.

A cut and highlight/lowlight/color at the local salon here is about $120. I brought my son for a cut (mom has no style and he's 17) and told him to get it colored if he wanted to (he's got "dirty" blond hair and frankly... it looks dirty) and left to do errands. Ooops! The stylist did highlights then cut them all off in an extra short spiky cut. I about fainted at the bill. We'll get his hair cut there again but I think we'll do the color by Clairol from now on. LOL.

Sooner or later you'll get around to pointing out how that's contradictory. Palin didn't claim to have said "thanks for the money, but we don't want it."

Sooner or later you will have to accept that the lie is that she said "thanks, but no thanks to Congress". She did nothing of the sort. Congress had already removed the earmark for the bridge (not at her request). She canceled the project because the money wasn't sufficient to cover the construction (contrary to the assertion that the state would pay for it themselves if they wanted it).

If she was going around saying that she canceled the project, you could argue she wasn't lying (still being highly deceptive, but not necessarily lying). But by claiming she told Congress "Thanks but no thanks" (a phrase which of course connotes that you never wanted the damn thing in the first place) is just a bald-faced lie.

garage saidMan I wish Sarah Palin would just offer up the evidence when and where she "told Congress no thanks" so we can move along.

Actually garage, the rest of us have moved along because the more astute folks came to the conclusion quite some time ago that the 'thanks but no thanks' quote was a figure of speech. She really didn't fly down to DC and go before the House and Senate and say 'thanks but no thanks'. But if you want to continue to beat that horse meat into the ground, by all means go crazy dude.

BTW, since you and Roger and Pete are in an electoral food wager, if Obama wins (Allah be merciful), I'll throw in some good old Hoosier pork rinds for a complete and un-nutritous meal. They go nice with any basic lager. If McCain wins, I'll take cheddar.

If you live close to or above the arctic circle, the sun never gets high in elevation, so even during the summer time it's hard to get a tan. In the winter, of course, the sun is rarely even seen.

In national politics, it's important to not look all pasty white. It's just not a respected look. If she had taken the stage in Minnesota with no tan whatsoever she would have been mocked for looking unhealthy. That's a fact.

Swedes are depressed due to the lack of sunlight (though God quite amazingly created the world so that frozen water crystals are blinding white and multiply the sunlight instead of some other less bright color during the winter when days are shortest.)

The supposed lack of humor and emotionalism among Scandinavians, I'm convinced, is because of being confined together all winter in very small lodges. There's no privacy so a sort of virtual privacy is necessary... where you don't emote all over the place and everyone pretends not to notice if you do.

And about SAD and tanning as light therapy, I found NO medical article that supported that theory. Madisonman is correct.

The details are that the two light devices are tuned quite differently. The type of UV rays in the tanning bed are 95% useless in terms of their spectrum. I am talking about the UV rays that are needed for vitamin D production. Those needed to tan are 95% of the spectrum of a tanning booth while they (the tanning rays) are less than 1% of a purpose built SAD light box.

There are abundent anecdotal reports of tanning beds being used for mood elevating purposes, there is even a proposed addiction to tanning, I kid you not.

Many of the anecdotal reports do not come from tanning bed companies and a couple were not referring to "a friend's cousin" but they are all anecdotal. I stick with the science and Madisonman on this matter as the data support it.

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge, particularly about how the project would be funded. As governor, she submitted her budget on January 17, 2007 without any money for the bridge. On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.” Governor Palin said in a statement that “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.”

“Media reports that Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere are not accurate,” said Schatz. “The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no. Any discussion about the project should begin with facts.”

Do I need to post this in every thread you want to bring this up in or will you concede that you were wrong and have been flogging a dead horse?